Is it me, or is there really no feedback regarding the target values and measured results after display calibration and profiling. I'm talking about color temperature, luminance, black point, gamma etc etc. Now I can't even tell what the native color temperature of my display is. This was all there in Eye-One Match...

I've just got the i1 Display Pro, and have found exactly the same problem (among others). Does anybody know if X-Rite are intending to add measured results to the end of the process? It's very annoying not to have them.

Ditto - it's a bit dissapointing really. You have to have blind faith that everything has just worked! Just to add that for some reason, at the end of the process, my before and after images don't change at all even after a big change between profiles...

While I can see how you’d like this kind of reporting, its kind of useless assuming the software has good error checking (and that’s an assumption). For example, if the screen saver came on during calibration, you’d expect there be some error reported telling you to repeat the process. Or you’d see a butt ugly display. But if the request is, I asked for 5600K and I want the software to tell me I got 5600K, well that’s mainly a feel good report. Not all that useful. You are using the same instrument and software, and a subset of patches after the fact for a report, its as accurate (or inaccurate) as the initial process.

You calibrate the display by asking for fixed values. Presumably the values you picked are to produce a visual match to your prints next to the display. Do they match? If so, do you really care about the numbers?

Having trending (plot the dE the calibration changed between sessions) is useful.

I agree with what your saying in that if the prints match up to the screen then who cares but the software is very basic and for £200 (give or take) it would have been nice to have some of that feel good factor with the numbers at the end, especially as I havent had anything printed yet I can't help feeling like it might need another release - I'm not too confident about my purchase now to be honest (see my other thread).

ps update 2 of the eye 1 profiler software has a fix to turn of screensavers if active...oh the irony!

While I can see how you’d like this kind of reporting, its kind of useless assuming the software has good error checking (and that’s an assumption). For example, if the screen saver came on during calibration, you’d expect there be some error reported telling you to repeat the process. Or you’d see a butt ugly display. But if the request is, I asked for 5600K and I want the software to tell me I got 5600K, well that’s mainly a feel good report. Not all that useful. You are using the same instrument and software, and a subset of patches after the fact for a report, its as accurate (or inaccurate) as the initial process.

What an absurd thing to say. You seem to be suggesting a high probability that the device is dodgy. I know that a small percentage of any electronic devices will have problems, but that's just how it is. To say that it's not worth having numeric feedback, just because it might be wrong, is completely ridiculous.

You calibrate the display by asking for fixed values. Presumably the values you picked are to produce a visual match to your prints next to the display. Do they match? If so, do you really care about the numbers?

Read the original post again. Yann said (and I agree) that we should at least be told what the native results are. You're the one who has always said, over the years, that monitors should be calibrated to their native temperature. We want to know what it is.

What an absurd thing to say. You seem to be suggesting a high probability that the device is dodgy.

Nope, only that the report, short of a problem that should be shown to the user during calibration as an error (instrument fell off the display) is useless as it will report what you asked for.

Do you understand how the report works? You asked for target calibration aim points. After calibration, the instrument measures a subset of the data it measured in the first place. So again, short of some major issue, its going to report what you asked for and in no way is that correct compared to having a higher grade reference instrument report otherwise.

You use your foot to measure a foundation because you are under the impression its exactly 12 inches. Maybe it is, maybe its not. You make the measurement and then do it again to make sure you did this correctly the first time. Unless you take out a reference grade measuring device (in this example, a tape measure), do you really think measuring this again is going to tell you anything useful? Or you ask for 5700K and the report tells you it got 5750K. Now what? You going to measure this again and again, or just see if the print matches the display?

Quote

I know that a small percentage of any electronic devices will have problems, but that's just how it is. To say that it's not worth having numeric feedback, just because it might be wrong, is completely ridiculous.

Without another instrument that has known accuracy, it might be right or wrong, you’ll never know. You can use your foot a dozen times, until you pull out that tape measure, you’re just wasting your time.

Quote

Read the original post again. Yann said (and I agree) that we should at least be told what the native results are

Even if its a lie? Even if it just tells you what you want to hear?

Quote

You're the one who has always said, over the years, that monitors should be calibrated to their native temperature.

No, I said that with poorer quality displays that don’t use high bit internal LUTs, start with Native WP to avoid banding. But use a non Native WP if the prints don’t match (because a match with slight banding is better than a mismatch that’s smooth). You are misunderstanding what Native WP does. And it doesn’t matter a rat’s ass what the value is! As long as the software initially doesn’t mess with the graphic card/system to introduce banding, it doesn’t matter what the actual value is. What does matter is if there’s a match to the print, a value provided by the software after calibration is meaningless. If there’s a mismatch, you’ll have to calibrate again and futz with the values in the target until you get the match.

Quote

We want to know what it is.

You think? Why is it useful to know a value that is a range of colors anyway and one that every other device/software combo will provide that’s a different value?

This is ridiculous.Just tell X-Rite, who will listen to you, that the public want numbers.

You mean a guy named Damo (or are you speaking for the entire public now?).

What’s ridiculous is you’ve as yet defined WHY any of this is at all useful, based on sound color management and the understanding of the processes. If I’m not going to take you too seriously, what hope do you have X-Rite will?

I’ll leave this pointless discussion by saying that you appear to be betting on the wants of the general public based on the same nonexistent empirical knowledge about the color management processes discussed here. But if you have any scientific data points about either, rather than just a feeling, I’m all ears.

Not me. I don't care about the numbers, I care about the display giving me an image I can expect to match when I print. I just installed, downloaded the 1.1.1 update and ran my new i1Display Pro. The results are much better than I was getting with the previous software/colorimeter and that's all I care about.

I do want to know the numbers to evaluate some of my monitor's features.

For example, I used to get the temp after calibration, what I used to do is to use the preset temp. of my monitor and the calibrate it.What I've learn from those no. is to tweak my setting to get better white point.

Also, when I used to have the contrast ratio after calibration, I can check if my other monitor (same model same batch) are reacting in the same way or not.

Just a few numbers, why not put it in? is it hard? does it hurt those people who does not want to see it?

Just to add to this that Simon Baker over at Tftcentral reviewed the eye 1 Profiler software and after profiling he went back and checked it over with their Lacie Blue Eye and all checked out. I have to agree again, that I would like some sort of validation at the end of the process. Even though I've read up on all this, this is my first actual use of a colorimeter/software package as in my old work, someone used to come around and do it all for me

For example, I used to get the temp after calibration, what I used to do is to use the preset temp. of my monitor and the calibrate it.What I've learn from those no. is to tweak my setting to get better white point.

The numbers such a device and software provide and what the presets on the display say have no real correlation. And any value given to you in Kelvin is a range of colors. You can’t take that to the bank. You need xy values. And lastly, tweaking the white point is a visual process. The numbers are meaningless! For nearly two decades, users have calibrated displays to D65 (which is NOT a range of colors) for viewing prints in a D50 illuminant because if you match the numbers, you get a visual mismatch between display and print.

Ask yourself: Do you want a visual match and a numeric mismatch or a numeric match and a visual mismatch?

You want your display to produce 5000K? Start heating it up and hope it behaves like a black body radiator. Be careful of the pool of molten plastic, it burns.